The drug companies are trying hard

I have received the Fall 2017 issue of Momentum magazine, put out by the National MS Society. It's a 74-page booklet, with 37% of the pages occupied by ads for 7 MS drugs.

In addition, the issue came encased in plastic along with a booklet on stiff paper, with color photos and page after page of charts, brought to me by Aubagio. The booklet has a pocket containing a leaflet giving the prescribing information.

What interests me is these charts.

A couple of pages have large-type announcements about how Aubagio reduces relapses: 57% relapse-free in Clinical Trial 1, 57% relapse-free in Clinical Trial 2, and 72% relapse-free in Clinical Trial 3. No mention is made of how long these clinical trials last.

Next we have a couple of pages about how Aubagio slows disability progression: 80% with no disability progression in Clinical Trial 1, 84% in Clinical Trial 2. Once again, no mention of how long a time these people were studied for.

Then there are a couple of pages about how Aubagio lessens new lesions, and we are told that 80% had fewer new lesions with Aubagio vs. placebo (Clinical Trial 1).

Wouldn't a person want to know how long this drug was tested? Only a few months, or was it years?

To find this out, you'll need to explore the leaflet buried in the pocket of this booklet, which is in tiny print. Assuming that the studies mentioned in that leaflet are the same as Clinical Trials 1, 2, and 3, we learn that Study 1 lasted "up to 26 months," Study 2 lasted "up to 40 months," and Study 3 lasted "up to 108 weeks" (2.5 years).

The words "up to" in all three of them must mean that for some people, maybe quite a few people, the study lasted considerably less than the time given.

Maybe these drugs are the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm just queasy about how hard they're trying to sell them.

The reason for that last question. The cure for MS lies in the middle of the treatments. They are all close, and make some difference in the progression of the disease, but don't cure it.

I think the cure is known. But MS is a cash cow for the drug companies. A cure would stop all that, it's not going to be exposed until every penny has been made.

It would be interesting to know the parent company of each of the new treatments Agate listed. Few if any are an independent company I would guess. The paper trail would end long before anyone is able to find that information.

One way to bring about the cure would be for every MSer to stop taking whatever med they take. Just stop. The cash flow stops, the companies stock plunge, and the only way to save face is for some parent company to suddenly announce We Have Found the Cure!

And they open their safe, and blow the dust off it, and declare..."And here it is!" But that's not going to happen.

So that is how I see this disease and it's many, profitable treatments.

The following 4 users say "thanks"

I doubt they know the cure. No way to keep that under wraps, too many would know.

But there are incentives to not find a cure for many illnesses including MS...This is detailed in An American Sickness by Elizabeth Rosenthal MD. The book details many of the problem areas in financing all aspects of USA medical care. It's a big eye opener for sure. It's a little redundant, could've been half as long. You can skim redundancies.

It's amazing that they DID find a cure for Hep C. So, cures are still possible despite the disincentive to cure.

The biggest problem here as far as I can tell is that MS is basically a collection of symptoms lumped together. It has a different effect on different people. I can't see finding a cure going that route.

Whatever happens around you, don't take it personally. Nothing other people do is because of you. It is because of themselves. -- Miguel Ruiz

The material on this site is for information & support purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice provided by a licensed health care provider.
Always consult your doctor before trying anything that you find online.